TNC

[David_Tepper]

The New Course!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/sports/golf/at-st-andrews-british-open-site-new-course-is-no-rival-for-the-old.html?hpw&rref=sports&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,


I've often wondered how two courses, on similar property, with the second course having the benefit of the first course, could be deemed so different ?


Was there ever an interest or an attempt to have the "New" course play in reverse order ?

[Jim Sherma]

There is nothing that equals the feel of hitting off the first tee of the old course. No course can be compared in any meaningful way to that or any other number of shots you face. That whole issue aside though. I walked away from my two playings on the New thinking that it was a truly wonderful course. Great turf, challenging and fun with some really good holes and shots. Anyone that thinks they need more golf than what the New presents is probably kidding themselves at least a little. Holes that still stand out in my mind are 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 18. Probably not on the list of great but definitely very very good stuff. I have it on my list to play again when I head back next May. Of course the Old is above it on the list assuming I can get a time.

[David_Tepper]

"Was there ever an interest or an attempt to have the "New" course play in reverse order?"

Pat -

I have absolutely no idea. My guess is that, aside from TOC, you could probably count the number of courses that ever played in reverse order on a regular basis (and are still in existence) on the fingers of one hand.

DT

[Tom_Doak]

"Was there ever an interest or an attempt to have the "New" course play in reverse order?"

Pat -

I have absolutely no idea. My guess is that, aside from TOC, you could probably count the number of courses that ever played in reverse order on a regular basis on the fingers of one hand.

You'll have to use your other hand come next year!


Actually, I think playing courses backwards was not so rare on links courses in the late 1800's.  They did it then for the same reason they play off mats in the winter now ... to give the landing areas a rest and allow the divots to heal a bit.

[Michael Whitaker]

I'm always struck how different the land is on the Old vs the New. The New is much flatter than the Old and doesn't have anywhere near the amount of "crumple" and undulations found on the Old. That is the major difference between the two that I noticed on first play.

The New is a fabulous course and has some outstanding holes, but it is a letter grade below the Old.

[Patrick_Mucci]

 
Tom,
 
Do you foresee any maintenance savings in a course that plays in reverse ?
 
 
"Was there ever an interest or an attempt to have the "New" course play in reverse order?"

Pat -

I have absolutely no idea. My guess is that, aside from TOC, you could probably count the number of courses that ever played in reverse order on a regular basis on the fingers of one hand.

You'll have to use your other hand come next year!


Actually, I think playing courses backwards was not so rare on links courses in the late 1800's.  They did it then for the same reason they play off mats in the winter now ... to give the landing areas a rest and allow the divots to heal a bit.

[Jonathan Mallard]

I thought it had a GREAT set of par 3s and that 5-14 were all world class holes.

[Bill Crane]

 Typical snarky New York Times attitudinal piece.
The picture is completely un-representative of the New – it is a shot of the 16^th green with the only tree on whole course.  I got up and down for par from there last month.

Of course, the golfers engaged in a photo are standing on the roped off newly seeded grass next to the starters window by the first tee.  Hope they are not Americans.
The New exceeded my expectations when my son and I played there on the June 11 and 12^th.  I gather June was one of the rainiest months on record, but it was firm and fast when we were there.   My son’s first round right off the plane and it was beautiful blue sky, about 78 to 80 degrees for most of the round.  Probably about 70 the next day and more sun.

The course was very firm and fast – you could not hold greens firing directly at them, and shooting for any pin near a bunker was deadly.  There are some really great holes and the presence of St Andrews as well.  I have heard the comment that this course would be ranked much higher if in a different location and I agree.
We did the full Doak suggested tour of St Andrews area – two rounds at the New, Saturday at G H Elie with members ( a charmer and beautiful setting ), and walked the entire Old on Sunday and had a beer and sandwich in the Jigger .

Wm Flynnfan

[Bill_McBride]

I love the sixth hole on the New.   The first five march single file away from the clubhouse and the town, then six turns back.  It's a lengthy par 4 with a lot of broken ground that belies Mr. Whitaker's comment, and a convoluted green backed by a wall of gorse and the skyline of the Auld Gray Toon above the gorse. 


The New is deficient in some mundane holes, 1 and 2 going out, some of the homeward half coming back, but it is a course that would be much more highly rated if not adjacent to one of the world's great courses.  Holes like 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 18, would hold their own on the neighboring course. 

[Ed Brzezowski]

Love number nine, I don't think there is a harder par three in the old town.

[Tom_Doak]

it is a course that would be much more highly rated if not adjacent to one of the world's great courses.  Holes like 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 18, would hold their own on the neighboring course.

I agree with your first point, which is why I disagree with your last point.  The holes you mention on the New Course are all good holes, but really nothing on the New Course would fit on The Old Course, which has a motif completely its own.

[Bill_McBride]

it is a course that would be much more highly rated if not adjacent to one of the world's great courses.  Holes like 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 18, would hold their own on the neighboring course.

I agree with your first point, which is why I disagree with your last point.  The holes you mention on the New Course are all good holes, but really nothing on the New Course would fit on The Old Course, which has a motif completely its own.

I know it's hard to visualize, but I think 9 New is better than 8 Old, as I think 6 New is a better hole than 6 Old. 

[mike_beene]

Is there a consensus that the New is superior to Eden( in either its current or past form)or Jubilee? I think so but the courses run together having played them just a few times each. I have always tried first to play the Old but have probably missed out by doing so and not learning the New.